On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:58:08AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: [ various snipping ]
> The following projects are not in active development and could stay in > CVS: > > greencard, green-card, haggis, hdirect, hood, hws, hx True, it probably wouldn't matter much. OTOH, if some parts are being converted at this point, I'd suggest just going ahead and converting the rest. That way, you don't have to maintain/watch two different systems. And, should these packages see development in the future, they'd be ready to go. > What I'm not clear about is how to handle the libraries subtree. This > is used by nhc98 and Hugs too, and presumably it would be inconvenient > for them if they had to 'darcs get' an entire GHC tree just to get the > libraries. Ideas? Perhaps we should have a separate libraries > repository from which we can push/pull patches to/from the GHC repo? > Perhaps we should convert libraries into a darcs repo of its own, and > then pull it into the GHC repo (how do you create the repos such that > this is possible - do they have to have a common root of some kind?). It is possible to have nested darcs repos. Whenever you run a darcs command, darcs starts with the cwd and recurses up the directory tree looking for a _darcs directory. So, it is no problem to have one repository inside the directory for another on-disk, as long as you are careful what you do in the parent repo. (The _darcs/prefs/boring file helps with this as well.) The usual method here may look like this: 1) User runs darcs get http://darcs.haskell.org/ghc (or smilar) 2) This repo contains a script, say getall.sh that is run from inside this new ghc directory. It will darcs get whatever else is needed. (There should also be an accompanying pullall.sh that will pull down updates from the remote) 3) Whenever changes are made, they are darcs recorded like usual. 4) Whenever changes are sent upstream, users must make sure to run darcs send or darcs push from the appropriate directory. (Otherwise, changes may be missed.) Other projects (hugs, etc.) could have a similar script. And, of course, when you build tarballs, you'd include all these sub-repos in your source distribution. Does that make sense? (And to other darcs folks: I'm not smoking something here, right? <g>) > Also, we'll need a two-way CVS gateway between the old fptools and the > GHC darcs repo (and the libraries repo), at least for the time being. There is some information at http://darcs.net/DarcsWiki/Tailor/CvSync#head-ef1c647c5b2be460867dc49aecfb05a6bc02df1f about doing this, so it is possible. I haven't specifically tried this with tailor & darcs. However, in general, it seems that these sort of arrangements are somewhat flaky, require a lot of babysitting, and are prone to error. I'd rather suggest a cutoff teim. I don't mind doing a "practice" and then a "real" conversion, if that's what it would take. The practice conversion would let people poke at things and make sure that they are working as they like. > Long term, when we no longer need CVS, I'd like to rearrange the GHC > tree. We can rename the root from fptools to ghc (yay!) and flatten the > hierarchy. That might be another thing to consider doing right now. -- John _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
